Monday, August 16, 2010

No Taxation Without Representation!

I have been reading up on the Canadian constitution and it`s quite clear, section 53 of the constitution clearly states that the executive branch cannot impose taxes without a vote in the legislature or parliment.....In a case launched against the New Brunswick Government, the plaintiff won, New Brunswick had to repay taxes back to the public, the argument was upheld by the Supreme court of Canada...New Brunswick lost.......

In fact it was a very interesting case, British Colubia was an intervenor in the case, what that means is this, BC stuck it`s nose in this case and fought the ruling, this case was in 2006/ 2007, Why did BC stick it`s nose in this case, the answer is obvious, BC and Gordon Campbell were already plotting to bring in illegal taxes.

It`s almost like Gordon Campbell knew in 2007 that he was going to HST us!

.....Never the less, New Brunswick Finance lost, the Supreme court of Canada ruled in favour of the plaintiff, the precedent is there, no taxation without representation!------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The below is some of that court case cut and pasted .....For anyone wanting to view the entire case and you can click here and here

In January 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that governments – like people – shouldbe held accountable for their actions. In Kingstreet Investments v. New Brunswick, people earning aliving in the hospitality and entertainment industries successfully challenged an 11% provincial “usercharge” on alcoholic beverages. Under Canada’s Constitution, only the federal government mayimpose an indirect tax, such as an import duty, paid by one person (e.g., a bar owner) in theexpectation that it will be repaid by another (e.g., a bar patron). Provinces may not do so. Handing asignificant victory to taxpayers, the Court ordered the New Brunswick government to repay onemillion dollars of illegally collected taxes to taxpayers. The user charge was an illegal tax, so theCourt rightly ordered the government to repay the money.The B.C., Alberta and Manitoba governments intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada insupport of New Brunswick, to argue that governments should not be required to repay illegal taxes thatare collected in violation of Canada’s Constitution. Before the Supreme Court of Canada, theseprovinces claimed that having to repay illegal taxes would inflict financial shock and fiscal chaos,forcing governments to reduce services or to raise taxes. This claim is a self-serving justification forillegal activity, and it assumes that there is no waste, mismanagement or inefficiency in the publicsector. This claim also assumes that every tax dollar, without exception, is spent to advance thecommon good. According to the governments, when a court rules that a particular fee or charge isillegal, the court should simply tell the government “stop doing that” – but not order the government torepay the money. The Court rejected these arguments and unanimously accepted the principles putforward by the Canadian Constitution Foundation: that governments must be held accountable to theconstitutional principles of federalism, representative democracy, the rule of law, and “no taxationwithout representation.” The Kingstreet decision highlights the importance of court challenges torestrain greedy governments from doing whatever they please to feed their never-ending appetite formoney.As an intervener before the Supreme Court of Canada, the Canadian Constitution Foundationsubmitted the following arguments:1. The Constitutional principle of “no taxation without representation” should be respected. Taxescollected in breach of constitutional principles should be recoverable.2. There should be no bars to the recovery of unconstitutional taxes. The “Immunization Rule” should berejected.3. The Government’s “passing on” defence should also be rejected.4. Governments should be required to repay unconstitutional taxes regardless of whether or not thetaxpayers protested.5. The legislatures, not the courts, are the best forums for changing unconstitutional laws and dealing withpotential ‘fiscal chaos.’1. The Constitutional principle of “no taxation without representation” should be respected.Taxes collected in breach of constitutional principles should be recoverable.Paragraph Canadian ConstitutionFoundation FactumParagraph Supreme Court of CanadaDecision1519Any tax collected without lawfulauthority, whether by virtue ofbegin beyond the constitutionalauthority of the legislature or bysimply being beyond the expressauthority of the legislation, violatesthe constitutional principlesenunciated in section 53, and thereis no basis for the government toretain the tax.The Foundation submits that theright to recover taxes collectedwithout authority flows from theconstitutional status of the principle,“no taxation withoutrepresentation.”“[T]he constitutional principle thatought to dominate all others in thiscontext is the principle that theCrown may not levy a tax except bythe authority of Parliament or theLegislature. This principle...ensuresnot merely that the executive branchis subject to the rule of law, but alsothat the executive branch must callthe legislative branch into session to1422The Court’s central concern mustbe to guarantee respect forconstitutional principles. One suchprinciple is that the Crown may notlevy a tax except with authority ofthe Parliament or the legislature:Constitution Act, 1867, ss. 53 and90. This principle of “no taxationwithout representation” is central toour conception of democracy andthe rule of law. As Hogg andMonahan explain, this principle“ensures not merely that theexecutive branch is subject to therule of law, but also that theexecutive branch must call thelegislative branch into session toraise taxes” (P. W. Hogg and P. J.Monahan, Liability of the Crown(3rd ed. 2000), at p. 246. See alsoP. W. Hogg, Constitutional Law ofCanada (loose-leaf ed.), vol. 2, atpp. 55-16 and 55-17; Eurig, at para.31, per Major J.).Professor Hogg has explained that“[T]he constitutional principle thatought to dominate all others in thiscontext is the principle that theCrown may not levy a tax except bythe authority of Parliament or theLegislature. This principle...ensuresnot merely that the executivebranch is subject to the rule of law,but also that the executive branchmust call the legislative branch intosession to raise taxes (and votesupply). To permit the Crown toretain a tax that has been leviedwithout a legislative authority is tocondone a breach of one of the most20raise taxes (and vote supply). Topermit the Crown to retain a tax thathas been levied without a legislativeauthority is to condone a breach ofone of the most fundamentalconstitutional principles.”[emphasis added]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Well folks, it is my belief that Joe Arvay is correct, the Zalm is correct, Gordon Campbell and Colin Hansen do not have any authority to impose taxes through the executive branch, it violates our most fundamental law...."No Taxation Without Representation" period, no exceptions.......

You want your HST Campbell, call the legislature and vote on it, you gutless, spineless BC Liberal MLAs stand up and vote in the Legislature for the HST.....Show your faces......

8 comments:

Anonymous
said...

They have tainted and corrupted every thing they've touched Elections BC is just the latest the office no longer belongs to the people , that too is long goneAs A.G. why hasn't Dejong intervened?? this decsion by One crony of the BC liberals is scary to say the least. thanks Grant for all your hard work

I think this court case's ruling puts the FightHST court challenge of the legality of the HST in jeopardy. This assumes that our justice system is not tainted. That, unfortunately, could be a big leap of faith. I hope I'm wrong, but logic and the law are not always on friendly terms.

One thing that this case brings forth to me is the legallity of bureaucracies such as Translink being able to impose taxes of any kind. The Translink Board brings forth an option or two to the Council of mayors for approval or rejection. There is no input by this council only acceptance or rejection. The Translink Board, not elected, determines the agenda they wish to bring forth. The mayors can only approve or deny. Is this considered taxation by representation? I think not.

Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberals gave Translink taxing authority in a vote in the Legislature several years ago...

I forget the name of the bill but...

It gave Translink the ability to add tax to fuel, parking, bus fares, it also gave Translink the authority to buy land, speculate, it also gave Translink several bridges it has to maintain...

Theorectically Campbell gave Translink the responsibilty of the ministry of transportation...

And....

Because of that we have tolled bridges, a 35% tax rate on parking.

The NDP voted against that bill, there was a big rally at BC Place opposing giving Translink taxing authority...

Unfortunate that the MSM ignored the issue....

And....It`s all part of Gordon Campbell`s bogus claims, he calls himself the tax cutter, he lowers income tax to the middle class by $50 dollars a year meanwhile Translink/BCHydro/Teresan/ zap everyone for $1000 dollars a year..

I tried to find Bill 43 on the government's website without much success. I did find the ammendments that reshaped Translink, but got bored reading references to sections of what I assume was the original bill that created the original Translink and not having the original bill to refer to.

That being said, my take on the supposed new and improved Translink is that Translink makes up the budget and chooses how to fund this budget, but the Mayor's council has the final say as to whether the funding formula will be accepted or rejected.

I guess as long as the mayor's council approves one of the taxing options put forward by the Translink board then it can be considered that the mayor's council levied the taxes, and because they are elected, then we have taxation by representation.

It could prove interesting if the mayor's council at some point in time denies Translink's request for tax increases. Would the government of the day stand by and accept this, or would they revert to the let's have another vote, and another, until Translink gets what they want in the same fashion they used in order to get the RAV Line approved?

The Constitution, is not followed, nor, obeyed. Our Civil rights and Liberties, have been taken away from us. I see no, Democracy and Freedom. We live in a dictatorship, and, have a tyrant of whom, we despise, and despise everything he stands for. Anyone opposing Campbell, finds themselves out of a job. As far as I am concerned, this entire country, is rudderless and rampant with corruption. It is Campbell and his, thieving, corruption, deceit and lies, that is killing this province. Campbell, controls the Judicial system, by threat of job losses. I will be amazed, if the courts rule in favor of the Anti-HST.